Planning Committee C - Thursday, 10th December 2020 at 7:30pm - Lewisham Council Webcasting

Planning Committee C
Thursday, 10th December 2020 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Start of webcast
Share this agenda point
1 Declarations of Interests
Share this agenda point
2 Minutes
Share this agenda point
3 25 SCROOBY STREET, SE6 4JB
Share this agenda point
3 25 SCROOBY STREET, SE6 4JB
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

thank you
good evening and welcome to Planning Committee said my name is already nobody Chair and I am I am joining with a Mim with a member of the Committee which will disarm with myself with the timing the application tonight
On nu-jazz circumstances we may occur in them
technically still because of virtual meeting please came here with us they officer was sort it out as soon as possible
and also please Members just to remind you before them to put to be on mute and the office as well because of the noise and background noise and also offers a members we have to be present on this meeting until we finish this meeting place on Car comma acts day the Clerk of the meeting of this Committee please to do the roll call and Members can you confirm your interest declaration of interest in this application tonight place
good evening but if then Catslip an odd that present
Councillor Clarke

1 Declarations of Interests

Crescent
Councillor Kelleher present willing tryst
Councillor Krzyzewski
present and Councillor for Rushey Green thank you
Councillor Maslin I'm present
any interest place
I have no interest thank you Councillor
Councillor Owen Paterson present knowing nothing to declare this
Councillor passion
I'm present and I have no declarable insurance Franken
Councillor Penfold
I am present and had no interest Councillor reform
present on the I've having problems of my internet connection I'm going to try swapping servers in seconds thank you that concludes the roll call thank you I'm can you do me if he was well to introduce the office as waste going to advise advising and assisting knows the Committee tonight to determine the application tonight please can you introduce them with their title place
solicitor on behalf of Lewisham poorly young senior lawyer
planning department James Hughes presiding Officer South Team Leader Samuel James presenting Officer Planning Officer that back up officer planning officer does make Racine seeing the Committee Manager
Claudette may not park I think digital services Dean vicar
surely more thank you
thank you and please before we proceed tonight application on please we need them administrative matter to the attention which is a minute of the lungs meeting please Members any correction or any

2 Minutes

thanking
yet thank you member
nothing to hide and nothing to remove thank you
the
what are we have we have I'm 5 5 minutes each body for the applicant and or ghettos and if we have any

3 25 SCROOBY STREET, SE6 4JB

public to speak on behalf or on behalf of this application need to pre-register a hope happen we have pre-register public to speak place flock
I beg your pardon SHA that we have any register pre register family member to speak please
the 8th to
the agent would go first yeah
and the agent is Lee would would
probably I Architects
Chadaway do we need to hear from the officer first in terms of presenting item yeah out now do that now
a
I may be planning officer failed to present the first application tonight place the application tonight
good evening everyone or just bring up the presentation B1 2ND
good evening everyone can you'll see the the presentation on the screen
yes
I thank you for attending tonight's members and members of the public agenda item 3 relates to the site of 25 Scrooby streets and it can be found from page 7 of the agenda the proposal proposes the demolition of the existing building on site instruction at the part one part two-storey building comprising a one one bedroom and 3 two bedroom dwelling houses together with an associated landscaping refuse storage boundary treatment and cycle storage
it's Group 4 members this evening as there are nine individual planning objections and the proposal is recommended for approval
have been reviewed by Chairperson of 1 of the Planning Committee's under the temporary planning delegated powers and the Chair determined that the application should be determined by members at his planning committee mean planning considerations when assessing proposals shown here so we'll go through these and through the presentation
quick introduction to the site first of all and the site is located on the eastern side of screw streets close to its junction with loud fell Road he accesses between the side boundary of number 23 St Mary Street's enough and the rear boundary of number 36 wild felt Road to the south site widens towards the rear
the immediately surrounding area is residential in nature and comprised of predominantly 2 storey residential terraced houses the south of the site adjoins the rear boundaries of number 20 sorry 36 24 while a Road to the north west is number 23 Scottish rates and to the sorry that North East is a semi circular our residential block of red of
dwellers Abu access for the former 17 screw Street further to the east and south of the site are at the primary and secondary shopping frontage of the Catford major town-centre which is made up of larger for him four-storey buildings which bring mixed commercial and residential use
Catford shopping centres further to the south
as existing site contains a number of Mesa restructures at Zara number structures one of these Mace rebuilding of approximately 5 metres in height set targets the north east and south elevations sponges of the site listings him Berlin to structure of approximately 3 point 6 metres in height since he gets himself and Andre of the end of the rear gardens of numbers 32 30 course Ruby Street at the existing buildings on Ciara foot poor condition
the former use was light industrial in nature being vehicle repair garage where where vigour past the surfacing undertaken and assistant ceased in 20 17 the area had Pete out rating 6 8 6 8
accessibility is pumped his direct view from the front of the site
3 buildings to the rear with roads garages topped dormers lean to the forefront it's here notice the poor quality from boundary treatments the view from slightly further up the streets can see the rear boundaries of the Wildfell Road properties
of the sites and another couple of existing photos at the sites here just say and Seeley
the existing buildings and hardstanding
stood proposed Friday rendition of the current proposal building follows similar footprint to those existing sites
firstly will look at the principal elements and so the previous use was a a vehicle repair centre which is the unemployment is and the ceased in 20 70 a prior approval application 20 18 effectively granted the conversion of existing buildings to residential use in the form of 4 2 percent dwellings
officers assessment days counterparts about the occasions restricted some promises clean the highways impacts impacts environments to help from flooding and officers could not consider the loss of employment nor the quality of both residential dwellings planning permission was required to subsequently for any further was Horatia external alterations to the existing buildings
An application for permission was subsequently submitted and granted March 20 19 sorry in March 20 20 for external alterations to the existing buildings including new brick work new windows landscaping was also proposed and as well as space for refuse and cycle storage and to from Alvy treatment prior to listen event the 20 19 a similar application was refused but the that subsequent application that was approved had to reduce the impact to the 34 to 31 while Road and included high quality materials and the previous applications so that's why the sun was approved and
the planning permission together with the previous have prior approval or felt as the fall-back position in the officer's report because the applicant could implement the scheme currently and the residential dwellings could be occupied once complete and jaysus the principle of residential development on the site is acceptable and it's likely the site well be averts residential uses in line with the fallback position in any case if about this application when approved the overall accessibility of the current proposal is subject to a building of appropriate scale and design which would have an acceptable impact on the appearance of the surrounding area on the amenities of neighbours officers of had regards to which scheme of the the to include Surrey which gave out the fall-back position and the current proposal is perfect for a viable and had their planning lyrics
blackspots speak about the impact to neighbours
the section of the building to the rear of the sides this proposed would be the tallest Mittoo storeys in height the rear elevation with increased from an approximately 4 1 8 metres to 6 point 1 metres for this northern section of the building on the left hand side and for the southern section of the building on the right hand side it would be increased from 1 8 5 point 4 metres and the slope of the pitch of the roof of the building and the for France and is reversed compared to the existing lean to building just like out the and the outline of the lens of building a Red dash there and this would put the highest point of this section of the building into the centre of the site away from the shared boundary of wildfowl Road properties
the proposed southern elevation that's this bottom elevation would have you can see it there as existing on the photograph
would have an eaves height of 2 point 6 along the rear boundaries of numbers 30 13 that if all of the road
which is the same as the fallback position which was granted permission earlier in the year
adjoining the rear boundaries of number 28 and 31 erode the built form would be increased to a height of 3 point 3 metres in this section here and the existing two storey element here would be increased from Filkin seventies in height when forming in height to the rear of number 26 and 24 was about the increased height to the rear of numbers that easy to 24 would have some impact on the outlook of these proxies our that existing outlook is already restricted by an existing buildings and these are the poor state of repair it is recommended that the small amount of hops alert would not warrant refusal in this application because overall the 7th the new southern elevation and the new buildings when the site bringing bringing at formalised residential use and new high quality materials into the site would replace the current poor quality miss much of as aerials and improve the visual amenities of neighbours or warmth erode over all
I'm in terms of the impact on 17 to the east the section comparison touring shows the increase of high the northern section of the building which is approximately 1 1 litres the impacted windows of number 17 are secondary many level so sat the rooms I sat are also served by the windows on the front or the rear elevation
and nevertheless the 25 degree diagram hair shows that the the default increased height would not have a significant impact on the of light reaching those windows
in terms of overlooking louvered screening has been proposed to the first floor windows which would direct the line of sight I throughout fell road Gardens and this would ensure that we know it to the wall fell Road properties the approximated overlooking distances here to the end of the boundaries shown and these are not direct here's any case
officers note that the proposed residential use more neighbourly and would likely cause less harm to labouring residential amenity to not just noise and disturbance than the previous lawful use of the site
the next consideration is provision of housing in the standard of residential accommodation is proposed the proposed density of the development is proposed towards the bottom end of the recommended density limits given in the London Plan which suggested a residential density is acceptable and would not result in overdevelopment of the site terms of these sound of accommodation is proposed her level of outlet privacy it hook for what it's worth peach dwelling is considered to be acceptable in line with them 31 that two or height glazing and doors would serve the ground floor living spaces to maximise natural light and all bedrooms would be south westerly facing windows and some of the battles of rooflights A-levels in date levels of daylight sunlight in the buildings since be acceptable and furthermore they would get improve an OMV full-back schemers Law high level of glazing has been proposed furthermore each dwelling would be produced with products that amenity space as well as landscape 3 or amenity area and these are considered to provide high level Valenti is noted for paragraph 80 of the officers report that two of the proposed dwellings would fall short of the minimum floorspace requirements Unit 1 x 4 square metres and you had to buy 10 when aces however over the size and layout of these proposed to earnings is a clear improvement and would represent a high standard amenity for future residents that the fallback scheme for bats him proposed just an sort bedsits environments with no separate bedrooms or living areas and and so this is a clear improvement and also the the shortfalls instead of amenity are smaller sound summary
proposal would deliver three two bedroom and 1 one bedroom dwelling on the sites
and the Post-Standard accommodation would be acceptable as it represents a clear and further and the full-back scheme refusal would contribute to the borough's housing targets in a predominantly residential and sustainable location making effective use of land and this is happening merits
terms of Little House to sign the the new building would be built brick and follow a similar footprint of existing building on site would have an L shape footprint with this Westward projection of the two storey section which in place of the existing Lintott hitting a heights of the rear and eastern section of the building would also being increased and this small section here and fills the and that he saw section and aware the thing to do is to stand along the southern boundary
Harry the elevations again just just for consideration and that's the these are the elevations shall 7 looking into the site from scurvy Street and see as the elevation at the rear again the north north elevation and section here and the southern nation again we forget looks at this one and when discussing neighbour elapse so the maximum height of the proposal would be significantly smaller than the 3 storey building to east and I would be a similar height to the eaves that existing terraced houses on Walk Mill Road and the height massing of the proposal is therefore acceptable as it would respect the scale of surrounding development remains subordinate to tight clothes facing brickwork finishes also acceptable in the final details of materials including doors windows and roof coverings as to be secured by condition
and from from the street the buildings would be a significantly set back into the site approximately 12 metres the closest for an elevation and they therefore wouldn't reappear as part of this Scrooby Street St sane and he says The buildings would not relate or or expected to collect directly relate to the building frontages at Cirrus houses and therefore the proportions and spacing of replace buildings is considered acceptable for this site
over all it's considered surrounding development respected in terms of the scale in development and the pros buildings not have a harmful impact on the surrounding area in this respect the first scheme of landscaping includes planting areas will trees and as a bench over all this is well considered it will have a positive impact on the screw Street streets him as was my high level of amenity for future residents it's no
a scheme of landscaping including the additional planting and the from boundary treatment would be an improvement on the fallback position as well and officers have have sought amendments throughout throughout this process to improve the landscaping scheme of this proposal in summary the design of the first building is of an acceptable high-quality and site-specific response over the face of a tidy up the site of three and four residential units which have positive impact on the appearance of the surrounding area
and finally we will look at the impact of the highways network
the site is within an area with a Pete our rating of 6 aiming as expect silence accessibility to public transport one of the highest in London it's within a controlled parking zone that the Rushey Green by Sapey that the existing crossover to the size proposed to be removed and the pavement reinstated and this has to be secured by the relevance Our legal agreement with Lewisham obeys puzzle does not include any parking spaces on site as a result of this and future residents will be restricted from attaining a parking permit in the controlled parking zone and via the fire by a legal agreement the bike store has capacity for several bikes and it's Shanell man at this is within the performance of the London Plan refuse storage is proposed as well 2 Euro ends and it'll be an acceptable distance to to drive to the pavement for the waste operatives final final details of this will be secured by condition
financial management plan a delivery service delivering servicing plan also to be secured by condition and over all eyes residential development would have an acceptable impact on the surrounding transport network
district that the pedestrian access would result in no no saved implications and the development would have no significant impacts on the wider transport network
includes the application has been considered in light of that policy South in the development plan and other material considerations are the loss of the former employment spaces considered to be acceptable having regard for the fallback position which is already granted the residential use of the site and for prior approval and the external changes and et sorry and that XL changes for a subsequent application my position therefore they the principle of residential development the size supported the development would achieve a number of urban design and spatial planning objectives out in the Local Plan including and the following planning merits and increase the Paris housing supply and increased housing tackle the sites it comprises of an appropriately scaled building which has high quality and at would not hunt maybe residential amenity as most earlier to the freshness would fall below the minimum space standards however the accommodation proposed standard accommodation 0 sorry as a clear improvement to that which would be provided by the port fall-back position and therefore the shortfalls identified in this space to be accepted furthermore the design scale of the proposed buildings is acceptable and it response to the constraints and the sides and given except for the proposed use and general policy compliance and taking a balance of the planning merits of the scheme against the the small level of harm has been identified the proposal is considered to be in accordance with it abandoned and as a whole and with the recommended conditions and planning obligation in place the scheme is considered consistent with national policy and officers therefore recommend approval of the scheme you
pardon arm then bus tough and western for for you place the force is Councillor panful Leeds
thank you Chair and thank you for your presentation shall and I'm you'll have to help me with this because what I don't quite understand here is the size of the Rubens because lots being say it would appear that the proposed size of the rooms are actually in breach of the London Plan and the rational for accepting that
there is a previous planning application which was granted where the rooms were even smaller so the question has to be asked why was the previous application granted if that was further in breach of the London Plan you say it fed the previous application in 20 18 and that was approved under process for prior approval under fast and under fast pay in the Town and Country Planning Act which allows changes of use to residential Wyre and Preston Park route and when we're assessing these and we are able to
sort of assessed the impact of the of the space of this internal space of each dwelling so essentially the process allowed allowed applications to be submitted for any size building as long as it was the right use and as long as certain other parameters around impacts to the highways and contamination or Mets then than those applications have to be proved so that's sensually while that was approved and I'm why now that it considered a positive positive of this scheme that improves upon that because if if this scheme is an approved it's very likely that the fall back position what the sorry there is prior approval they shall be implemented which
which would would provide a much worse than the amenity for future events ill with you'll huddle worse appearance and landscaping materials had and other other either I've mentioned in the in the presentations Urca third death forget this clear there are two previous applications as one in 2 thousand 18
which was granted in 2 thousand 19 and will an uncouth one was about the 19 which was granted on the set of March 20 20 you sound that was also granted for priority now so the the planning application was submitted subsequently to the prior approval and to to makes certain alterations to the building to add so windows answer to add some brickwork to the elevations and and then basically for those to be used for residential accommodation because the prior approval had approved the principle of residential development the sites that planning permission was only assessed by officers on the basis of the on of the external raciones and and support that we we couldn't we couldn't refuse it on the space standards because there was that prior approval which which effectively could have already been implemented at those same sized brooms but that planning permission allowed the buildings to be brought up to its of better parents basically and an level that
they also the insanity put in an application for prior approval we can't at that stage and impulse the London Plan and inset of that game started was yeah that that is effectively how that legislation work so as national legislation the prior approval it's it has been changed recently and these these kind of applications to allow change of use of any industrial sites are essential won't one biz easy for developers to do going forwards from I think early next year but
as it stands this application does have that for approval on it and if we refuse this commission effectively is very likely that the poorer quality residential units will be who played it occupied
thank you Councillor Osman please
I'm
themes covered my questions Chair thank you Councillor
skilfully recently so it gets fine and yeah I was gonna ask exactly the same question I just think this is all a bit yeah I mean it can we ask Can I as the legal
at our league whether Inupiat if it if it went to appeal whether the fact that then law has now changed would have any weight in that in that in that kind of considered with that consideration or do we just have to stick with this route this this existing situation not workers spirit I think that Polly young the little officers having some connection so I think she may have dropped out of the meeting and she's going to come back in I probably out an and for her in that the you know a as I'm says that the government is changing the General permitted Development order in April and they are adding the national space standards onto any residential prior approval coming forward so Committees very unlikely to see future applications that have undersized units in the future so the government brought this in in 2 thousand and 10 and now they're making some changes to to basically acknowledged the fact that some of these proposals are brought forward you don't very undersized homes so from April next year we're unlikely to see them but because the applicant has the prior approval in their hand they can implemented and it will be worse than what is on offer here tonight so that's that's effectively the position
thank you James I'm sorry I am so I am able just OK
now I'm just going to say the week this is the fall back position is I material consideration and the issue here is the
if members decide which you are entitled to do so decide not to got planning permission Ilicic Asian the applicant can implement that prior approval and you will have a worse development fully feud granted this one so that that is the the position you would find yourself in
thank you Beaumont arm Councillor
yes thank you very much I had exactly the same question over the space standards and Dearne I very much feared that we would be in this position of being over 30 gun held to our heads from the point of view the we cannot turn this down from the that point of view from the spare standards point of view because we'd actually be then allowing something much worse to go ahead so I find that very difficult position to be in but that's had planning system has worked and it's left as an unenviable situation with regard to this fair standards
the other question I just very be the briefly did some clarity on page 28 says that three of the units are not the spare standards it was just out of curiosity cause in pitch 23 at CES 2 or not at the spare standards and I was bit confused about that I'd like parity of that and the second thing though as I said I think it will make any difference because we don't have the power to change that really the other question was about the bins and the placing of the bins against other residential properties I wondered why because that could be a loss of amenity bins can smell very badly and things could be dumped around bins and so I wondered if the Officer could so give me a bit more information because that could have a serious effect because it's onto people's back gardens basically thank you
2
so in terms of the the number of units which makes space down as I think I've said that to to the unit for short of the overall standards so one of them by 10 metres squared of one of them but for me to squared one of the earlier that's for sure by 2 metres squared however there's a
relatively large private garden provided to that unit 16 metres squared so in the report we've we've kind of said that on the balance that you know role been fighting with acceptable standard of amenity even if even if they fall back position wasn't there
how that occupation and with a bins
effectively that the positioning of the bend you say it's against a residential got back garden as there's not really anywhere else on if he lived at the other side that would be against another residential garden and to the back of against another residential garden so the way we control it is a good 2 Euro bins basically with lead on them residents would be expected to took to put rubbish in the bins
yes and then they'll be collected on collection day by the by the waste operatives who put the pins back after collection and and I think that's that's the position the previous previously the bins were approved in as well on on the fall-back position are yeah I'd I don't think that position is harmful it is quite quite common C had the bin store located on another residential boundary thing
I have to say that I realised that sometimes they on residential boundaries the when it backs onto gardens I do know that these types of bins are not well used there often overflowing often lids left open or you get turn sometimes right sometimes foxes and you get the smells from these bins when people don't put the lids across so are having had done a lot of case work around bins and I always look at a planning applications I would hope officers would and and discourage putting bins close to people's back gardens because also if you have young children those very putrid smells it can make your life a bit of a nightmare especially in the heat of the summer so I do think that this is a design fault in some of these things yeah thrown up by his fair enough I do appreciate that I'm I think in this case as as it's just for four units the you know the none of the amount of waste generated isn't going to be the same as for for a much larger development and also we have got a condition on the on the proposal for for final details of the waste management should be submitted so if you wanted we could add no formal here for eight or support been sort of I don't know if that would definitely stop the smell issue with often leg White you know there no air tight those bin stores Italy so I still think it might be a bit more helpful than just having openings where people can dump mattresses next to it and all sorts of other things and I do appreciate it is only for 4 units so it probably is less likely to be whereas if it were sort of 20 or 30 units more likely to to be really bad that thanking thank you Councillor partial
yeah I I want to say something about the Sundar sizing 10 square metres is a considerable size room so this property is lacking a considerable size room and the difference that I see between or I believe that I see between this application and the fallback one is that these are two bedroom
properties now I didn't want a 2 bedroom property until I had a child which means that the difference between the fallback position is children between fall-back position and this proposition is children and I feel really concerned that where eyes if one adult person or an adult couple choose to live in undersized properties that's their business it does concern me when things which are in effect although small a family dwelling it concerns me when is under sized by a whole living room and I have to say that that that's that's the difference that I perceive everybody saying 0 this is better quality than the previous thing that the previous ones were one bedroom properties and as I say how or an adult chooses to live is is their business I feel quite concerned about
consigning children to living in an extremely small property and it is one of the two bedroom ones which is a whole fairly large room short and I feel quite unhappy about that and I have to say that we can talk all we like about how beautiful they are but but we can signing people to living in under sized properties and and I feel that that that say a poor line to take especially if there is no longer seen as appropriate that if this was put off or four months it it might not be seen as appropriate and and I find that that are very difficult circle to square to be honest and I I don't
how to move forward except to to voice that opinion at this at this point that that is the distinct difference between the fallback and current thank you thank you
I'm councillor painful place should bear on thought gone about us as full-back and follow up of suspense said I vote Labour this could be explained by either understand we
have or couldn't have any say about the size of the rules in the two previous planning applications why are we now being allowed to discuss the size of the rules because surely fell under permitted development so what changed that this has now come at this and the other ones were not put forward like this may be not explain to me because I just don't get it I'm sorry
the previous application that was approved that was the planning permission that that didn't go to a Committee I think and essentially that that was thought was for external alterations and landscaping in connection with the prior approval so that together with the prior approval forms the previous back
permission this is an application for planning permission
it's not necessarily linked to the prior approval however the prior approval sabotaged the prince toward the residential development on the site so as we have previously mentioned it's the the material consideration is that basically the but a new proposal yet as we said provides up about standard combination of fierce residence but we can't and and we
and we've considered he would consider the standard of accommodation in this case because it's not Casement planning permission with live sets out where it doesn't meet our policies however and in our judgment the fact that doesn't meet those policies and I sang cases is outweighed by the by the fact the weekend when they can implement previous prior approval I hope those your question
jumped tabled by clarify the of permitted development right was that the conversion of a a or be one see unit currently the application before us is for the demolition of the units and 2 for a new build so
the they will have been able to rely on the pay day for this particular development they relied on the PD for that Prince support change from the from the light industrial to the residential and then they follow that up with a minor panel application for external changes this is different in that it is a for application for a diminish demolition and the construction of a new building so that's why it is different and you can consider different matters under the prior approval you're as San has outline your restricted to only set in certain impacts and the one of them is not the principle of residential development or don't know that help explain it a little bit a little bit further
well what I'm not clear about its why we're having a discussion about the size of the runs here will be taken at discussed about and the cyber-threat suitable a lot and we can't look at the previous one because is plainly plan of Mr. demolition of when we turned this down surely around the planning permission to do the works anyway they rely on the previous one because I need
the prime
prior approval last for three years from the date of Grant said they had for years to implement that prior approval is we can't you can quite rightly consider the size of the rooms because that is the policy I knew can decide to refuse if you so wish but you have to have regard to the other material considerations and that prior approval grant is one of those but you could decide that you think the breach of the policy outweighs the fall back position and if you do that a new fears that the lava say they've got the right of appeal which he sighed but that doesn't prevent them bit then been able to implement their prior approval so they could build out the scheme that the previous schemes because I don't believe they've demolished the building yet so they could just change the use of that building and Uzi other Associa penny Commission to make external changes
right
but the earlier permission I need permission because I don't initial so we refused him but bear the mark of their build out from the existing buildings on what you're saying
sorry my connections appalling this evening and I never quote what you just said which prophetic lace
I get to the bottom of this what you're saying it that if we refused to then that will start on moshing they won't be able to demolish and build or what they could do is build out from the existing buildings because I had that permission to do that already sat right about urban nailed it now
I believe in the planning of says not enough are still never grasped all but yes I believe so what you're saying is that yes the pick the PD like they've got the prior approval they got was for the conversion not for the demolition and so they would only be able to rely life on its I converted the existing buildings
thank you
is it possible that we can have an adjournment of the meeting so that we can discuss this separately I just I feel that we need to have a better does better discussion of this and with with with officers to really understand this is that it's on or so yards you said what goes probably session to Skelly gallows I would yes I would That's
the Chair and your illegality should they so wish to take private legal advice
the honourable pedigree regardless of my questions please that's OK I'm Councillor Gordon please name system before we do that thank you like others I'm feeling very blackmailed and cornered and I'm very unhappy about this scheme because apart partially because of the size and Rome's but also because of lack of light especially in unit 3 I'm and it's not a material consideration but I can't imagine anybody actually buying me so it to me the whole scheme seems to be a waste to timely date be better off withdrawing style and again but I'm sure I'm saddened that my my my ignorance of the system and
they the housing market but I do want to highlight that unit 3 I mean there will hovels as far as I'm concerned especially units 3 were due to the lack of light it's it does seem to be they're building a hovel I'm going to be our evening definition on the thin-skinned definition truth and once of Copley accuracy
thank you
I'm sure before before we adjourn what would it be helpful to hear from the applicant's agent and the and Wellville Road Residents' Association did we want to go into a closed session before that that's not thou dost do then we can call the applicant now place
if the applicant's agent is in the in the meeting yes hello can you hear me
yet we can Harry OK local would allow me you have an 5 minutes please and the Necker at question thank you OK thank you very much good evening ladies and then my name's Les would would have W I Architects
we all the applicant's agents they in this instance and the I can explain a little bit about the applicant is a small developer builder and they thought the site with the prior approval they didn't go through the process of making the application they purchase their with the prior approval in place and which as you know give some permission to convert the existing buildings into residential use but they are looking to build out a better quality development and provide much needed housing in the borough the site has been occupied with industrial years says it's fine before by the Planning Officer with car servicing yard am OTS Cara and surfacing welding and all the associated noise and vehicular movements connected with the carriage in what is a predominantly residential area and the Prior approval was achieved in July 20 18 and the change of use was to residential with four bedsit style units so really the basis for the design in the current proposals is to enhance that prior approval streetscape
what we say is being a better quality proposal comparison we aim to provide a development that follows the lines in the scale of the existing buildings with new construction virtual later at consume development units 1 2 and 3 are to be sunk into the ground by about 750 millimeters and coupled with a small increase of height so Unit 1 and so and a smaller increase for unitary provides enough head room for two floors of accommodation
units 3 and 4 have the similar or sign ridge height as the existing buildings on as approved under the 20 18 prior approval the existing window openings at high level are utilised to provide natural daylight to the first floor and we followed the design of the existing to minimise the impact on the surrounding properties and keep the light industrial style of existing buildings the reason Fern you construction being saw as a benefit over the conversion of existing is to ensure good quality and sound fabric to the building of Louth which will comply with the current legislation which gives her a stable and thermally efficient and tell an environment which is much more difficult to achieve with existing building fabric which admittedly is at the end of its useful life at 60 year design life most material components where way beyond that with quite a lot of that that's there so there's a potential for Ellie kitchen El drafts and altering rests I will have to try and combat that with converge so would prefer new components that are performing a reliable manner and provide the new resonance with the property which is sustainable and affordable to heat the applicant came to provide the family and we took them units as one of the reasons for adding another bedroom is so that these can be occupied by couples young and old and with room to expand to a family or even use that second room as a home office it offers longevity to the occupation by these residents and they can set down roots and Fong ties with the community as they are able to stay for longer or not having to move on when they want to accept a bed sits on notorious for short term rents and a high turnover of occupants I am they wanted to avoid that relevant it's much better and a benefit of the community as a whole if people are saying when ice and putting Everett's we also think that removing an industrial use from the residential area now that's not part this application particularly because we got the full back but that is what we're o applying for the it would be great benefit to the adjacent properties the noise dust oil traffic movements solidly much reduced the my crenata environment for and added to that as well that the ground floors will be an accessible design at ground level access toilets
the site is also subject to agreeing with the introduction of the Ponting shrubs small trays to an environment that's distinctly lacking in any kind The Granary and the Prior approval has very little in my Ponting for cycle stores has a green roof and an old of that would be in accordance with Council policy on the matter of highways again the size car-free with covered secure cycle stores for the residential units no cause of vehicles are allowed on to the site and the entrance has been revised to a loan reform and a gate
the site is very close to local amenities well-connected for local transport links and again this supports council's policy the first floor windows which are in existing positions have been treated with that privacy screening to avoid overlooking to the neighbours at wildfowl Road and the beds at the no additional overlooking as introduced the natural daylight aspect of the tall rear talk of the rear of the site Demirel righted that this year Han as that so you have got to second please OK so to conclude are the the development provides a good suitable high quality housing as a replacement
complementing the resident Benchill nights Chair of the major area and 6 to impose upon the prior approval scheme now coming under some appropriate Council policy which will further enhance it that element and can contribute to gainsay an offer a well-needed accommodation thank you give
councillor for
question please
I I think I'm asking this on behalf of all the Council's cause it's clear that we have some concerns but when you say you going to improve from the non-staff allocation and this would be high quality at their difficult words to put next to something that's 10 square metres too small by spare standards despair standards were set for a very good reason and that was to get quality in design and quality in accommodation for people and to not go to the lowest common denominator Aren phone for living standards so I want you to really tell us why you feel it's improving things when it's improving to a bad position from an appalling position and why you wouldn't improve it to a really good position maybe go down to 3 units and do larger units which are of the Spice standards I think all cancers would like to know that because this is contrary to the accepted plans that everybody normally has to work to so so could you sort of go back on that and I just so I'll leave it at that for the minute anyway thank you if it were simply it's an improvement upon the position we're in width
protocol that could be implemented that we're making better a great
the platform
we're sorry
staff still Europe's yourself because you you cut off or second sorry sorry I'll Garbett floors well they improvement is on the full back the prior approval and I I agree and it's not to the London Plan standards because we can't achieve that with a very tight site as we have here the first floor bedroom sizes are actually so the London Plan stand at the bedrooms themselves meets the space standards the overall property size does not and one of them you are quite right which is unit to falls 10 May 2 short which as a one of the other Councillors pointed out yes is tomatoes as a large size room but the bedrooms are to a standard to to the standard
the the ground floor on these properties is open plan we do make savings in terms of doubled-up circulation when knock on internal walls that divide the space and were
it may make gains in that way but the Spice landed of the set out by the London Plan is not met however the improvement that I am referring to is
upon the prior approval I think the question really what I was trying to drill down onto why you didn't speak to stick to the space standards
that was the question Why didn't you stick to those space at its and wine couldn't you stick to those space standards in a better development on this site
I can't I'll start from my the applicant's point of view but the brief is to for four units as to bettors where he introduced the an addition we got an additional floor that the prior approval didn't have and that's created the space however not to the London Plan standard
decided that doesn't ask my question I understand you're saying you can't answer at the applicants could then the applicant may be should have come and explain why they want us want people to live in spaces which are below standard but thank you Chair WaPo I'm very exact or Antoine for that they the SCI was purchased with properties that were even further below the standard that we open so that that's why I say it's an improvement
thank you Councillor Keller
thank you Chair on still very concerned and whilst the officers were able to answer my question I believe you came units 3 does not have adequate lighting that makes it a hovel now you say that you dealt with this by creating floor-to-ceiling windows the light has to actually be there and the light is blocked by Unit 1 and Unit 3
the could have first go light on the roof of the kids kitchen so you need to
but you did them
and that it will allow these like though icy design faults I had I shared the same concerns as Councillor Clarke and the other Councillors I and I also see Councillor Cox proposition for a 3 Unit like 3 adequate units being in this situation of it and possibly the best we could hope for I don't understand why you would even consider bringing forward such a bad design that you know failed to meet standards and in black my Lesley role of don't let us do this we're going to do this horrible we even worth scheme
I am appalled truly appalled thank you Chair
thank you Councillor Haslam
I just I'm I know we're trying to do here the applicants got permission he seeking should get permission to do something better what are we actually trying to achieve
I think understand because if we reject this application he's got permission to got do something this even worse we can't make the developer do what we want make mater and an application has been accepted it's been it's gone through the process and it's got recommendation for approval what are we trying to do
thank you
councillor
Rzewski please
An EqIA Thatcher's because wanted Chichester and check about these louvered windows that you've got they they primary windows or are they secondary windows because if that can be if a primary windows and they are going to be louvered like that I just wonder whether how what that's actually gonna be like living in a sleeping in a bedroom like that with louvered went with the using those rooms
if I can answer for the the louvres all on half of the windows are half of the window is clear and the the loop various on the other half of the when DARD and whether we could bring up the elevations to point that out
and they are primary windows is that correct but a correct yes though the here but I think it's one whether it's almost completely covered is that correct
yes it is so that the the view out the windows so my time although it it preserves the privacy to the back gardens of the wild fowl Road properties so your stir your view is directed away from somebody else's amenity so it's not covered entirely but simply a low for an angled blade that the direct your view away from somebody that so you don't affect their amenity
again did you consider them and actually making one of these units and three bedder and as because we have we have a we have a shortage of three bedroom properties within Lewisham and for family dwellings so did was that a tall considered by by you or did you just say you know just in terms of making a bed profit margin on this go for more more properties with like two bedrooms
but those are balanced which struck for sure between numbers about rooms and families if we had three others though would be certainly more children we've got a thing about the amenity space which is shared and train all of the though the properties and a tree better property is likely to be potentially two maybe three children and in that sheds vice though this perhaps a little bit too much pressure on the shared amenity space her whereas a to better there are beds there's more chance of that people be able to share that more successfully
a 3 bed would yes you would have three properties on the site and said before
thank you Principal pursue please
yes it's another that we seem to be going that to this space and an encounter mostly mothers what we're trying to do here but it would seem that Eighties far more financially attractive to pull these buildings down it's always more expensive to convert buildings than to to to build new ones particularly buildings that have been empty for four years and shown deterioration and trying to bring them up to standard and then of course it's far more financially attractive to make them two bedroom properties than one bedroom properties
and that there is nothing wrong with with financial considerations we all have to make financial considerations in in life but
that the things that you're saying are making it worse and worse in my eyes when you start talking about open plan and the number of people I have coming to me with casework living in small open plan properties where the safety of their children is becoming an issue because there's no way that they can keep their children away from boiling pens and things like this because there is no kitchen door and it's becoming worse and worse in my eyes what is happening here because I'm on trying really hard to think that this is providing a higher quality accommodation for the populous rather than that the developer having to admit that the the buildings are in such a poor state it's going to be a real our job to convert them into anything and they and their only got to be one bedroom properties and people are going to look at them and not find them very attractive so and try and on really struggling to understand that how we can say are well this is meeting the need when I can't in my heart see as meeting a need and where going back to what I originally said
there is a whole room missing from a 2 bedroom property with an open plan kitchen which is dangerous for children with two bedrooms which you say will attract families with children and I found myself in a bit of a difficult position whereas otherwise the developer would be left trying to convert some rather shoddy buildings into some rather shaggy bedsits and the problem all seems to be with the developer in that case but a Ehsan because I don't approve of financial gain I just feel that that that the boot is all on this for at the moment and I'm trying to be persuaded that that isn't the case
thank you Councillor Desmond please
Banks on earlier we had a request that we go into a closed session on I'd like to formally put forward a motion that we go into closed session I think we need to start space arm and get some confidential legal advice right now
I second lap before work before we do that I think we need advice from the Office on the level of is because I think it's better to me my own opinion to listen to the applicant of the top and we can do that the church on at I'd like to insist that without my motion place
yeah cycle at leisure
chair I think if the motions on the floor that I think will have to pause to hear from the welfare resistor shall we go into closed session if if that passes so I am like a site I think they officers and legal officer can give some further information in closed session
so it it's for Members to to to vote on the unemotional floor thank you think that needs to be a wrong Cole Vice-Chair arm unplug please can you do to roll call on enfeeble and against abstain place
I take
plus the odd had you vote in favour of a growth level
as the clock in fatal
Councillor Keller
I'd actually rather than wait until we've heard from everyone and then go in closed session so injustice
unit 1 m sorry but there was a disturbance there was noise can I ask you to treat the place I said I'd rather wait until everyone has been heard though against
can
Councillor Krajewski
Councillor could reveal Buerton
targets for
Councillor Muslim
I support the Chair's rulings so therefore I am against
because the other one
Austin
that's the passion for
cut the Penfold for the motion
the reform for
the outcome is 6 in favour
one against one abstention
thank you there would surely they were to Adams to again because guns yeah I beg your pardon
2 against regulation is
thank you I'm so before we go into closed session can we just get Maria from the Wildfell residence Association and Mr. Woodward arm our are going to have to leave the meeting and then re-enter and we can we can pass the video feeds of legal Officer can give us some advice thank you curate as quickly as come when do we come back I think that the I T personal contact you when we're ready Dean can you confirm that
yes that's what may be the case Maria I envy you do that the amount of far I can yes it helped me out of it Mayo's ice-cream it thank you you welcome SMEs Mr. Woodward are you out your concern without Sywell look go on like you were ready to write to come back
OK
I can't our older Mr. Kearney just wait until I confirm please before I'm
I can confirm that both of them have left the meeting
thank you Chairman

3 25 SCROOBY STREET, SE6 4JB

thank you
there are contacted the Our representatives they should be trying to get back in the lobby now find your Widworthy diktat with
chair man at flea would would is back in the meeting thank you
we've got the an aggregate the objective and the meeting of the up going up thank you I'm can we call the arm of Deptford place and you have five many speaking please
yes please yeah any cannot hear me in the me OK yet please and Kate perfect thank you so much so thank you for the opportunity to speak on this development and on behalf of the Wildfell Road residents Association I was certainly thing that myself and others are not against the space being used for housing as you are aware there were no objections to the change in line Youth applications and were effectively proposed to seem the same footprint as the site does now our objection to this application is based on the following the original objections and concerns provided by the council to the applicant have not been addressed or considered which is an ongoing cause for concern primarily we are concerned about
the increase in apartment size delivered through an increase in building height which will impact natural light the application does not fully take into consideration or address the issues around the height and its impact for residents want reassurance that this development will not continue to grow in size as this will negatively impact the surrounding properties furthermore the most recent predecessor to this application was refused which we know what was what which we know was refused by the Council with concerns raised over the impact of their properties we can see no evidence how this has been addressed and the risk is surely increased with a bigger development and size location of windows on the second storey provided direct line of sight into adjacent gardens and properties I appreciate that Samuel mentioned screens but residents feel this will be of little use and we have looked our own windows and concede to Ruckley into the property of the development including their own windows which we assume they'll be able to do with Ars poorest light layout exemplified through the location of the rubbish bins adjacent to the residents back gardens Councillor Carr Clarke is correct the bins are incredibly praised if you are aware of our community and if you know anything about our community you know there is the inefficient issue with residential rubbish all you have to do is ask your cleansing team and they will let you know
also the size of each apartment does not meet adequate living stems earth and the residents Association want to know why the applicant are asking people to live in substandard conditions traffic concerns as another concern of ours I'm specific to parking and the continued ongoing traffic management issues within the area the intersection between Wildfell Road and Scrooby seat as one of the most dangerous streets within Lewisham according to the Transport Team and we know that any additional traffic will only impact the spare I appreciate that Samuel did say that permits will be difficult to attain by this development but not impossible as such we are asking at the Planning Committee taken to considerations the needs of existing residents and ensure the site is properly developed and not rushed thank you and please let me know if you have any questions
members may want to ask the EU of the anarchist comple
I'm in that case I'll say thank you and just turn my camera off thank you very much for coming
members before we proceed to move the motion please any question for the officers and place members
could we just put in the a in could the officers look at the possibility of the and strengthening the conditions around the rubbish bins because I that does leave me still feeling a little uncomfortable it it won't be the amenity would be so when we come to a motion that is circa so I think there was some discussion of an informative that would request the applicant considered enclosure like sort of a of a full enclosure for the bands and I think that would be appropriate so if if are members minded to make the most of the scheme it could be with in a format of tosh with respect to but enclosure that would convey the the wasted tells coming forward
thank you
thank you
members can we move on to the motion now to vote now to Brown or to reject all
the fact the application place member
only move yappy any recommendations Chair
Anthea ancillary second
I second that Chair thank you Councillor Ramsbottom now we need to hold on to fourth replace flat you call their own companies
Councillor Bernard had you vote abstain
Councillor Clarke have you vote for
cut flow Callahan D vote against
Councillor Crookes Sky had you vote abstain
that's the Muslim enhance you vote about Thor
Councillor Campbell what have you vote for
because the pursue had you vote
against
because the Penfold had you vote
both
as the report had you vote for
that's part in favour 2 against two abstentions
proposal my care would be the applicant's on his Grant their subject to all the condition thank you
cycle over the past what happened was as point about the Bill
but it is only the second nationally
sorry Councillor I thought we included informative that the motion would included it formative to our ever alert the amicably we want to see enclosure come forward with details I as fine thank you OK thank you very much
I am bringing the meeting to the end thank you for coming in the night